The accusations of historical child abuse against long-dead public figures is occupying the Police to such an extent that it seems that even burglary of one's home is no longer considered important enough for them to attend. I can understand that genuine victims of sex abuse all those years ago need to be heard and have some closure, but some proportionality is required when looking at thinly stretched Police resources. Now we hear that five separate Police authorities are trawling for accusers see BBC link to News Story

Personally, I thought that Sir Edward Heath was an odd and grumpy character, but that doesn't make him bad. There doesn't appear to be any substantiated evidence against him (unlike the Jimmy Savile case) but the Police seem intent on nailing him at any cost. Clearly there can be no judicial closure since Heath is long since dead, and cannot defend his own reputation, so is all this use of Police resources really justified ?

I totally agree with your comments Edward. That said, there can be no excuse for any kind of child exploitation, anywhere.

As an educated adult populaton we should be able to trust each other to do the right thing by the kids and raise them accordingly.

As Rod says, things were very different 50 or 60 years ago. There was no compensation culture then, and the tendency was to hush things up rather than 'tell' on people.

I remember there being a few masters at my school who had a reputation for being distinctly odd, and rumours naturally circulated about their predilections. The difference in those days was that such inclinations were rarely reported to parents or the authorities. I was never abused in a sexual way but remember being on the receiving end of a certain amount of whacking, verbal humiliation and sarcasm, all of which in their own way amount to abuse.

I am sure if I tried, I could prove some psychological harm, but there really is no point in pursuing it now, and it had never occurred to me to try.

Culture and attitudes changes with time and it's sometimes hard now a hundred years later to judge events by those attitudes. Soldiers were "shot at dawn" in WWI, now a truly shocking way to treat a human being who was maybe a victim of shell shock. Back then the thinking was different. In the 1960s men would sometimes pat girls on the bottom. In most cases both parties either found it amusing or even an act of friendship. Now it would be considered humiliating, degrading and sexist. Some women hate being called "Love". I can recall Lancashire men calling each other love as well as both genders using the term. It was friendly and warm. It's all too easy to try to seek out some hidden motive in the things we say and do.

2015 is a year that is far removed from 1965 or even 1985. Many things are incredibly better, but sometimes political correctness has stirred people to look for things to complain about and seek financial compensation almost at the drop of a hat. Old chaps like me now have to use terms like "white board" for example. We had the odd green one at school, but I'd better not say what most of them were.

As for Ted Heath, I really have no idea about his sexual leanings. It's taken an awful lot of time to elapse plus his demise before these accusations have been aired. Dead men cannot defend themselves.